Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 244 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Markos Moulitas is not objective
[Read the article: Bloggers mature, the New York Times stumbles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would correct your statement that lumps DailyKos in with "objective" blogging. I am a fan of the site, but have been deeply turned off by it as of late. Markos posts blatantly anti-Hillary blogs often. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/15/224112/84
At one point he did have to provide an update apologizing for an erroneous post about her, but it hasn't stopped him from acting very condescending to DailyKos Hillary supporters, or making them feel unwelcome on the site. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/17/11329/780
I've read many comments left by objective Democratic voters who wonder what crimes Hillary has committed to Kos that ejects statements from him such as, "Actually, her Iran vote made this clear, and is the main reason she is unacceptable as our nominee."
I have yet to see him hold Obama to the same standard as he co-sponsored a bill in April '07 labeling the Iran Revolutionary Guard terrorists ("The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007") which effectively provided the same result as the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, or Edwards who was on the Senate Intelligence committee when he voted "yes" on the same Iraq resolution Hillary did (and therefore had more knowledge that the intelligence was unconfirmed, but still voted yes).
Many of the criticisms leveled at her are the things I've read over and over, so there are no new revelations about her. He has just jumped the shark regarding how he views her and I see him as rabid as other republicans out there.
It's been very disheartening and disappointing to watch this unfold on his popular website, nonetheless. I cannot understand why liberals would attack another liberal who has not displayed , in any comparable way, the wretchedness that republicans have over the last decade, yet they will conflate her behavior to that level all the time.
p.s.
The NYT move to hire is Kristol, is just bizarre. He has been proven to be blatantly delusional and an incorrect judge on everything, so he's given valuable space in the "paper of record" to opine? Why are they rewarding him? Do we Democrats have some disease where we allow Bush & Co. to get away with this stuff and still win something?
-
Seriously, what is NYT thinking?
[Read the article: Bloggers mature, the New York Times stumbles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm trying to imagine NYT exec's mindsets during a strategy meeting...looking at their dropping subscribers, the lower revenue, the increasing expenses and the threat from Murdoch looming on the horizon.
So what do they do? They spend their precious revenue on hiring Kristol, so that they can appeal to the 25% of American voters who will support Bush & Co., no matter what?
What kind of unhinged strategy is that? Let's try and appeal to the demographic that hates us blindly in the first place? Man, NYT really needs new leadership.
-
Strange attack indeed
[Read the article: Andrea Mitchell's strange attack against Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I watched that strange report as well and it definitely hit me as an unprofessional show of pile-on towards Hillary. She did keep repeating "manufactured" over and over, and I was thinking, "isn't this a campaign? Isn't this what every other 3rd place candidate would do? Of course they are watching the results and have to be moved into another roo."
Not cool, Andrea. Not professional at all(I've always found Andrea's opining pretty bland and off the mark, and her hard on the eyes).
Thanks for pointing it out, Alex. The other posters on this are obviously partakers of schedenfreude for Hillary. God forbid we don't just all attack her now, as to their liking.
-
Risky strategy could backfire
[Read the article: The politics of not nice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This Edwards strategy carries risk as well. Just as Obama and Hillary split the vote for him to get 2nd place in Iowa, he may do this to himself in New Hampshire.
He initially lumped Obama/HRC together as the front-runners. Now by positions himself as one of two "change" candidates. With Obama running to the center, when Edwards runs to the left he could peel off lefty Obama supporters and Undecideds. In the meantime, HRC gains the advantage.
And what if Edwards succeeds in knocking HRC off? Then he's the weakest of the two "change" candidates and he really didn't accomplish anything but to die another day.
His best chance is to go after Obama and make this a two-way race of "change" vs. "status-quo" between himself and HRC.
-
@ Frank Lloyd
[Read the article: The politics of not nice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you suggesting that Edwards ultimate strategy is to negotiate a cabinet position with Obama? I think he would vehemently disagree with this conclusion.
He had no problem working with Clinton initially to try and knock off Obama early on in the primary race (remember the mics picked up their conversation after a debate). And he had no problem working with Kerry (a "status-quo" candidate), after that primary loss.
He's also walking into a SC primary that puts him squarely in a local and southern environment, just like Obama was in his element in Iowa as an Illinois senator. He has just as good a chance at winning SC, than Hillary or Obama.
But his strategy was always to walk the walk, that's why he is going with public campaign financing. I would submit that this is a miscalculation on his part, but that's my opinion.
And to conclude, I still think his best strategy is to knock off Obama. He's arguing for the same pedestal, and Obama is winning that spot for now. If indeed the Dems will vote for populist change over the establishment, then he has nothing to fear going up against Hillary. But he will lose if its just between him and Obama.